Before discussing the handout on the Faculty Research Committee'sreport on the Fall '95 research enhancement recipients, Prof. Conroy askedthe Senate to rule on a special case. The applicant is on a hiatus fromtenure track until 1997. Was this person eligible for a grant since grantsare specifically for those who are on tenure track? Since people dooccasionally move between lines (often to stop the tenure clock), it wasmoved and passed that the rules should stand currently as they are.

The question was raised whether all fall-cycle monies not awardedcan be carried forward to the spring-cycle. This will be investigated.The pool of applicants was small this fall and not every proposal wasfunded, and some were not funded at the level requested. Should the rulesbe changed to include non-tenure track, if it appears that a small pool isgoing to be a trend and we cannot carry forward monies not distributed?

The Senate examined the report and voted approval. Twenty-sevenproposals were accepted. Fourteen were rejected for a variety of reasons.Applicants can rework and resubmit proposals in the next cycle.

Prof. Conroy noted that the guidelines need to indicate that in thefuture Human Subjects Committee (IRB) approval will be needed for suchresearch before awards can be made. Also we need to have electronic formatfor forms and have everyone sign-off on everything in packet. Too manyproposals are coming through without all required materials.

The Senate thanked Prof. Conroy and her Committee for their carefuland diligent work.

60 FIVE-YEAR STUDENT FEE PLAN

Two handouts were distributed: (1) the PC's proposed 5-year planfor student fees and (2) a report on the linkage between tuition andenrollment. The latter indicates that low income students may leave schoolif institutional aid is not available to offset increases. SWT ispreparing to increase the TPEG grant program by $550,000 for those onfinancial aid.

VPF&SS Bill Nance and VPSA Jim Studer have been invited to discuss thestudent fee plan at our next meeting, January 17.

41 TENURE AND PROMOTION--UP OR OUT

Last week's Senate minutes reflected the debate over the wordingproposed by VPAA Gratz which seems to imply that "normally" tenure andpromotion to associate prof. go together and that early promotion beforetenure is "extremely rare." At the same time, the statement is made that"the granting of tenure and promotion are two separate and distinctactions." (1) If the two "normally" go together, then the criteria must bebasically the same, so how are they "separate and distinct"? (2) It is notat all convincing from data of the last three years that promotion andtenure always proceed together. [The 1993-95 numbers we have indicate 23persons were granted both tenure and promotion to associate prof. at thesame time, while 28 were promoted to associate prof. and either had tenurealready or were going up before they were eligible for tenure. We do nothave the figures for the number of persons with tenure who did not applyfor or did not receive promotion, which could prove to be a sizable numberon investigation. The Senate has requested this data.]

The T&P Committee came up with alternative wording which reducedthe implication of inflexibility for departments and Schools. On the otherhand, the present wording is sufficiently open to allow flexibility, so whychange it. RTA'd for more input from departments.

53 OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT

Regent's Rules in Section V.4.1 encourages some kinds of outsideconsulting activities but discourages "regular employment outside theUniversity." In any case, 4.(11)8 provides that "No member of the full-timefaculty of the System employed on a twelve-month or nine-month basis shall beemployed in any outside work or activity or receive from an outside source aregular retainer fee or salary during the period of employment by theUniversity until a description of the nature and extent of the employment hasbeen filed with and approved by appropriate administrative officials as setforth in the faculty handbook of each component University."

Our handbook provides that "The faculty member who seeks such approvalmust submit a description of the nature and extent of the employment to thePresident via the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the department chair,and the school dean. If the outside employment is not antagonistic to theinterests of the State of Texas or the University and does not intrude upon theacademic functions of the faculty member, as determined by the President,permission is granted in most cases."

One approach to this subject would be to require a standard form to beused campus wide. The Senate briefly examined two models--one, a form used bysister institution Sam Houston State, the other, a form used in our School ofHealth Professions. After discussion, the Senate was of the opinion thatrequiring faculty to complete an outside employment form might not accomplishmuch. First, some faculty may be less than forthcoming in describing or evenadmitting to being involved in outside employment. Second, if a chair or deanis inclined to look the other way and not enforce the policy in individualcases, requiring the completion of a form will not change that. In sum, torequire the forms will help the University accomplish its objective whenfaculty are entirely candid and their chairs and deans are entirely diligent,but not otherwise.

The Senate believed that the better practice would be to, first, ensurethat all faculty are aware of our outside employment policy, and second, toinstruct chairs and deans to enforce it to the best of their ability inwhatever manner they choose. If they want to require the completion of a form,that is fine; if they have some other method that works for them, that is fineas well.

In the course of the discussion, someone raised the question regardingpenalties for violation of the policy. It was noted that there was no way toknow because SWT, unlike at least some other institutions, has no facultydisciplinary code. The Senate may investigate this subject when time permits.

65 FACULTY AMENITIES

The Staff Council has been compiling a list of perks the staffshould know about and utilize. We have received a copy of this tentativelist to review and add to (if any) for faculty amenities. Are there anyperks we would like to push for? [For example, Texas staff and faculty arenot allowed tuition waivers for dependents, as in some other states. Wecould use some info on what other states have this, or other benefits.]This will be an ongoing item.

02 SENATE MINUTES OF 11/15 AND 11/29

Minutes approved with addition of recent info that those faculty ona 12 month paycheck will not see 2 percent added until March. You get thesame amount of money but it is apportioned differently.

NEW ITEMS

(1) The SWT Faculty Senate now has a home page on the Internet,thanks to Prof. Ev Swinney. Available to you and to others around theworld are such items as: SWT's Faculty Constitution, the Senate'sStanding Rules and Committees, Faculty Handbook, and SenateMinutes. The page also provides links to University Policies (UPPSs), the SWTFactbook, the Faculty Directory, and some 30 or so other Senate home pagesaround the country. The Senate materials can be accessed from the SWT homepage index or by going directly to the Senate's URL: http://www.txstate.edu/swt_campus/facsen/facsen.html.

(2) A report has been received from Prof. Don Hazlewood (MathDept. & Faculty Governance Com.) re "Changes in the Senior Faculty Systemfor Departmental Governance." In brief, the report suggests the wording inthe Faculty Handbook be changed to reflect what many departments alreadydo, i.e. allow all faculty to participate in most faculty decisions exceptfor personnel decisions that are the responsibility of the Senior Faculty.This seems to be in line with our push toward inclusive total qualitymanagement (TQM). This will be returned to the agenda after we have had anopportunity to examine the report. Copies ofthe report are available onrequest from the Senate Office.